Research Article
Developing a Library
Association Membership Survey: Challenges and Promising Themes
Mary
Dunne
Information Specialist
Health Research Board
Dublin, Ireland
Email: [email protected]
Received: 25 Apr. 2022 Accepted: 8 July 2022
2022 Dunne. This is an Open Access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30157
Abstract
Objective – Many of us involved in the library and information sector are members
of associations that represent the interests of our profession. These
associations are often key to enabling us to provide evidence based practice by
offering opportunities such as professional development. We invest resources in
membership so we must be able to inform those in charge about our needs,
expectations, and level of satisfaction. Governing bodies and committees,
therefore, need a method to capture these views and plan strategy accordingly.
The committee of the Health Sciences Libraries Group (HSLG) of the Library
Association of Ireland wanted to enable members to give their views on the
group, to understand what aspects of a library association are important to
librarians in Ireland, and to learn about the reasons for and against
membership.
Methods – Surveys are a useful way of obtaining evidence to inform policy and
practice. Although relatively quick to produce, their design and dissemination
can pose challenges. The HSLG committee developed an online survey
questionnaire for members and non-members (anyone eligible to join our library
association). We primarily used multiple choice, matrix, and
contextual/demographic questions, with skip logic enabling choices of relevance
to respondents. Our literature review provided guidance in questionnaire design
and suggested four themes that we used to develop options and to analyse
results.
Results – The survey was made available for two weeks and we received 49 eligible
responses. Analysis of results and reflection on the process suggested aspects
that we would change in terms of the language used in our questionnaire and
dissemination methods. There were also aspects that show good potential,
including the four themes that were used to understand what matters to members:
expertise (professional development), community (connecting and engaging),
profession (sustaining and strengthening), and support (financial and
organizational supports). Overall, our survey provided rich data that met our
objectives.
Conclusion – It is essential that those who are governing any group make evidence
based decisions, and a well-planned survey can support this. Our article
outlines the elements of our questionnaire and process that didn’t work, and
those that show promise. We hope that lessons learned will help anyone planning
a survey, particularly associations who wish to ascertain the views of their
members and others who are eligible to join. With some proposed modifications,
our questionnaire could provide a template for future study in this area.
Introduction
Library
associations are professional organizations formed to bring together those
involved in library-related work who share common interests in subjects, types
of services, or other factors, such as geographical location (Librarianship
Studies & Information Technology, 2020). At the local, national, regional,
and international levels they play an important role in the development of
subject fields; provide opportunities to enhance skills and knowledge, and a
platform for discussion; unite and give voice to professionals; and keep
members up to date with new developments (Dowling
& Fiels, 2009). To be
successful, library associations need to fulfill the goals and expectations of
their members, so it is crucial that those managing association strategy and
making decisions understand these factors.
The Health Sciences Libraries Group (HSLG) has been a
special interest group of the Library Association of Ireland since 1982, with a
recent average of about 50 members. We have an annual conference, annual
general meeting, virtual journal club, email discussion list, e-newsletter, website,
and hold regular continuing professional development (CPD) and networking
events. The committee manages governance and activities on
behalf of members. To meet expectations, we needed to obtain their views on the
resources and services provided by the group, the aspects that are most
important to them, and their reasons for membership. We also wanted to
understand why some health librarians in Ireland are not members of our group.
We conducted a literature search and developed an online survey that was made
available in November 2021.
Literature Review
A search of
ProQuest Library Science database in September 2021 using the term “library
association” gave a useful overview of available literature. This was followed
by checking of reference lists, and a search of library association websites.
Two aspects were of particular interest: the questions used in past survey
studies and the themes that emerged from texts. Four identified themes related
to what members may expect to contribute and receive through association
membership: (1) expertise - professional
development, (2) community - connecting and engaging, (3) profession - sustaining and strengthening, (4) support - financial
and organizational supports.
The Chartered Institute of Library and Information
Professionals’ (n.d.-c) five-year action plan has four value propositions—community, expertise, representation,
and recognition—that are similar
to our first three themes. Although “support” may be subsumed within the other
themes, for the purpose of examining membership, keeping it separate is useful
for highlighting potential barriers or facilitators to joining or engaging in
an association.
Themes were
identified in a range of articles. Some were descriptive commentaries or desk
research about the value of library associations (Broady‐Preston, 2006; Chase, 2019; DiMauro, 2011; Joint,
2007; Lumpkin, 2016; Morrison, 2004; Wise, 2012). Other articles
involved primary research, including studies that indirectly referenced the
role of library associations, such as Corcoran & McGuinness (2014)
who interviewed academic librarians about CPD, and studies that directly
researched the subject. For example, in their 2020 study,
Garrison and Cramer (2021) received 140 complete
responses when surveying business librarians about what they wanted from their
professional associations. Henczel (2014)
used a phenomenological
approach to study the impact of library associations. She conducted 52
semi-structured interviews with members of national library associations,
providing a wealth of information. Spaulding & Maloney (2017)
also looked at impact, asking how belonging to and participating in a
professional association as a student impacted careers. They reported on 1,869
responses from their online survey. Frank (1997)
conducted focus groups on the value of being active in professional
organizations. In the same year, Kamm (1997)
received 116 responses to her U.S. survey on how members make decisions about
their library association.
Identified Themes Related to Library Association
Membership
Expertise - Professional Development
One of the common themes in the literature on library associations is
the provision of continuing professional development (CPD), including access to
training and skills building through attendance at courses, workshops,
conferences, and webinars (Henczel, 2016b). New knowledge, competencies, and skills gained through
this CPD were viewed as a means of boosting resumes (Schwartz, 2016). While active
participation in associations demonstrated engagement, leading to career
enhancement (Frank, 1997; Garrison & Cramer, 2021; Spaulding
& Maloney, 2017) and opportunities for
research and publication (Chase, 2019;
Wise, 2012). Lachance (2006) remarked that “No library association can survive,
sustain, grow, or remain relevant in the modern age if it does not address
members' educational needs and provide innovative learning solutions that lower
barriers to access” (p. 9).
Most associations facilitate professional accreditation pathways that
encourage CPD and provide specialist professional competency standards to guide
learning. Henczel (2014) found that professional registration was regarded by
her study participants as a reason for joining associations, retaining
membership, and becoming more participative in association activities. Registration
and certification are available through associations such as the Australian
Library and Information Association (ALIA), CILIP (UK), and the Library and
Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa (LIANZA). These schemes list
multiple benefits for participation, including increasing the standing of the
profession, recognising professional excellence and CPD, and providing a mechanism
for employers to coach and develop staff (LIANZA, n.d.),
increased status, earnings, and recognition of abilities, skills, and
experience (CILIP, n.d.-e). Changes in
skills and competences also came about through participation in association
activities (Henczel, 2014).
Community - Connecting and Engaging
Studies frequently
report it is important for those involved in the library or information sector
to have opportunities to connect through networking and collaboration (Davidson
& Middleton, 2006; Frank, 1997; Kamm, 1997; Sauceda, 2018; Spaulding & Maloney, 2017).
Garrison & Cramer (2021) described
networking as vital, saying that healthy organizations must provide ample
opportunity for members to share experiences (good and bad), insights,
suggestions, and to build friendships and have fun. They assert that library
associations should support members through sharing expertise, connecting
members in various roles, and “creating a network of supportive colleagues and
mentorship” (p. 35).
Specific groups of
people have been identified as sometimes needing more support in their
practice. The ability to participate in an informal network of colleagues can
be of enormous benefit, especially for solo or specialist librarians according
to Chase (2019).
Bradley et al. (2009) contended that new
professionals can benefit from simply observing and interacting with
colleagues, and seeing their peers being treated with professional respect.
Associations have been found to make a difference through their support of
members moving across sectors, students and new graduates, those in
non-traditional roles, living in rural or geographically isolated areas, and
those nearing retirement (Henczel, 2014).
As Spaulding and Maloney (2017) assert, we need to
connect with people through transitions.
Profession - Sustaining and Strengthening
Progress and
cohesiveness within our profession is being achieved by setting and monitoring
of global values and professional standards, accrediting courses and curricula,
active recruitment, and disseminating research and professional information
that will enhance our reputation as a profession (Agee & Lillard, 2005).
Henczel’s (2016a, 2016b) major
thesis considers library association impact on individuals, employers, and the
profession. Her research concluded that five perceived impacts related to the
profession: social inclusion and cohesion, information and education, promotion
of the profession, and the sustainability of the profession. Although much of
the literature on the value of associations is based on the personal attitudes
of members, some associations have produced literature to demonstrate their
impact. For example, researchers Streatfield and Markless
(2019) have worked closely with the International Federation of Library
Associations and Institutions (IFLA) to evaluate the impact of its
international programs: Freedom of Access to Information, International
Advocacy Programme, and Building Strong Library Associations. The latter
program, in turn, focused on helping associations build capacity and meet their
goals (IFLA, 2016a).
Beyond the specific
knowledge required to practice, librarians have acknowledged the benefits of
being aware of what is happening in the profession and preserving our
professional cultural heritage for future generations (Henczel, 2014). The altruistic view of
contributing to our profession is mentioned throughout the literature (Chase,
2019),
with many seeing membership as an obligation or “the right thing to do” (Kamm, 1997, p. 299) and a way of
“giving back to the profession” (Henczel, 2014, p.
131).
Library associations have also been described as a forum to champion our
values, such as open access to information (Morrison, 2004).
Political action,
particularly lobbying, has been cited as an important role of our associations (Agee
& Lillard, 2005; Kamm, 1997).
Some librarians have expressed the importance of having a single, united, and
strong representative voice (Henczel, 2014).
Ahmadian Yazdi and Deshpande (2013)
viewed it as essential for professionals “to meet and plan their activities to
safeguard and promote the interests of their particular profession” (p. 92).
Support - Financial and
Organizational Supports
A fourth theme that was seen as potentially important in relation to
library association membership related to costs and employer support. Some
associations, such as the American Library Association, have reported declining
membership (ALA, 2020). One of the main concerns, or reasons for
non-membership, has been cited as cost (Frank, 1997; Kamm, 1997). Although financial incentives in terms of grants and
member discounts were referred to as a frustration when access is limited (Garrison & Cramer, 2021), it has also been suggested as a positive reason for joining (Schwartz, 2016). The extent of employer support of their activities, either by paying
dues or expenses for conferences and meetings, has also been cited as an
important factor in the selection of an association (Kamm, 1997).
Barriers to participating in CPD include time, financial costs, and lack
of support from employers (Thomas et al.,
2010). Corcoran & McGuinness (2014) have suggested that professional library
organizations must be innovative and consider incentives to participate that
resonate with members. This theme of “support,” therefore, involves some of the
practical barriers and facilitators to membership that associations must consider.
Aims
We began with an iterative process that involved the setting of our aim
and objectives, a literature search to assess what was known about the subject,
and a review of emerging themes. The HSLG committee want to retain current
members but also to understand why some of those involved in relevant positions
have never joined or have left us. The overall purpose, therefore, was to
enable evidence informed decisions by the committee leading to a strategy based
on the views and needs of members and that tackles potential barriers to
membership. We focused primarily on the views of those involved in health
settings but also wanted to be guided by those from other sectors.
Survey aim: To gain insight into the issues of relevance to membership
of our group and association.
Our objectives were to
- enable HSLG members to give their views on the
group,
- understand what aspects of a library association
are important to librarians in Ireland, and
- learn about reasons for and against membership.
Methods
Questionnaire Design
A survey is a quick way of gathering data and allows everyone in a
defined population to contribute. Online survey providers enable easy creation
of various question types and answer options (Ball, 2019; Nayak & Narayan,
2019). For a cost, there are also advanced features such as skip logic
(questions offered depend on the previous answers so participants skip
irrelevant questions) and crosstab analysis (useful when comparing the answers
of participant sub-groups).
However, self-completed surveys do not generally allow for in-depth
interrogation or clarification of answers. The wording of questions may also be
interpreted differently by participants (particularly if care is not taken
during design; French, 2012). Where time and costs allow, a qualitative method
such as focus groups or interviews would provide additional data and real-life
examples to improve understanding (Granikov
et al., 2020).
In line with
good questionnaire design, we only included a question if it could provide
important context or useful application (the answers could enable action; National Care Experience Programme, n.d.). For
example, new librarians have been identified as potentially having different
views and needs to others (Chase, 2019;
Joint, 2007);
therefore, a question on length of service was warranted. The number of questions asked depended on the
association membership status of participants. Questionnaires with more items
tend to have a lower return rate (French, 2012), so we asked most questions of
those who belonged to our group, as they may be more invested and receive the
greatest benefit from providing responses. No personal data
(such as age) were necessary.
To facilitate skip logic and analysis by population, we organized our
questionnaire into sections. Section 1, which was answered by everyone, contained contextual questions based largely on the
four variables used by Henzcel (2016) in her study on
library association impact: association, sector affiliation, career stage, and
activity levels. This included information on
the work or study status of participants, how long they had worked in the
sector, whether they received financial support to join a library association
or attend events, whether they had ever been on a committee, and their
association membership status. The latter (Q7, Table 1) was primarily used to
direct respondents to further questions. (See Appendix A for survey
instrument.)
Survey Skip Logic Questionnaire Flow a
|
Q7. Please
tick the most appropriate option for you: |
If yes, then
directed to: |
|
1.
I am a HSLG
member |
Sections 2 and 5 |
|
2.
I am a Library
Association of Ireland member (but not the HSLG) |
Section 5 |
|
3.
I belong to
another professional library association, instead of the Library Association
of Ireland |
Sections 4 and 5 |
|
4.
I am a former
library association member |
Section 6 |
|
5.
I have never
belonged to a library association |
Section 6 |
a Section 3 asked why someone working in a health
setting was not a member of the HSLG. This required additional skip logic in
Question 1.
Closed questions, with options provided, were primarily used for ease
and speed of completion, but in case options were not exhaustive, “other,
please specify” and open questions were added where appropriate. Choices were
listed alphabetically to prevent researcher bias in terms of order. Only Question 1 (on eligibility and status) and 7
(required for skip logic) were mandatory. Evaluative questions provide a
baseline measure and an opportunity for governing committees to review areas
that are working and those that need improvement. These questions can be asked
at regular intervals to monitor progress. Therefore, we asked participants to
rate the value they place on membership, how well we are currently meeting
their needs and expectations, and to identify gaps in services. Wording of
these questions and the options provided were inspired by those used in
previous library association survey studies (Garrison & Cramer, 2021; Henczel, 2016a; IFLA, 2016b). However, to make items
salient to our members and to meet our objectives we developed our own survey
tool.
Questionnaire Testing
Questionnaires require testing to assess reliability and validity of
questions. Reliability refers to how well data can be reproduced, with a
reliable survey resulting in consistent information. Validity is how well a
questionnaire measures what it is intended to measure, with a valid survey producing
accurate information (Fink & Kosecoff, 1998; Meadows, 2003). Both can be obtained by ensuring that definitions and models used to
select questions are grounded in theory or experience (Fink & Kosecoff, 1998, p. 6), thus underpinning the importance of the literature
review and researcher discussions.
Using skip-logic requires additional time for testing as each potential
option needs to be followed to ensure appropriate flow. One HSLG committee member devised the questionnaire
and the other five members previewed and
filled it in multiple times to check that questions and answer options were
appropriate, comprehensive, and made sense (face and content validity).
Survey Dissemination
We made the survey available online in the first two weeks of November
2021 and sent the link via our group membership list (49
recipients), discussion email list (85 recipients, including members and
non-members working in health librarianship), the library association
newsletter (approximately 570 personal members), our website, and via three
invitations to participate from our Twitter account. As an incentive, and a
means of thanking participants, we offered eligible respondents the chance to
enter a draw for a €50 voucher. To ensure that responses remained anonymous, we
set up a separate survey for the draw. Those who wanted to participate could
click on, or copy, a link to the draw survey and enter their email address at
any time during a three-week period. Researchers were only allowed access to
the one survey to which they were assigned, which also ensured that results
could not be connected to individuals.
Results
We had 49 valid responses:
21 HSLG members (response rate of 46% for the group), 21 other library
association members, and 7 non-members of an association (including 6
former members). Just two participants worked as an information professional
for 0–5 years (4%), 12 (25%) worked 6–11 years, and 35
(71%) worked 12 or more years. As this article focuses on the
development of our survey, we primarily present results that highlight issues
of importance to design.
To learn about current
financial supports, we asked if respondents’ organizations or libraries paid
towards membership or attendance at CPD events and courses. Considerably more
of them paid towards CPD than membership (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Payment towards membership and events by organizations or libraries.
(From survey questions 4 & 5.)
Themes
Having developed new question options, it is usual to look for assurance
that these are appropriate and comprehensive. Our four themes were useful in
setting and analysing two core questions. We asked participants for up to three
reasons for their membership, or non-membership, of a library association, then we asked them
to rate the importance of 20 options related to membership. Asking the open
question first allowed participants to provide answers that occurred to them
instinctively (before viewing researcher-defined choices).
Forty respondents provided one or more reasons why they were a member of
a library association (Table 2). For non-members, six respondents gave at least one reason why they were not a member.
It is difficult to draw conclusions from the small number of responses;
however, there appears to be a feeling of disconnect among some of those who
are not members of a library association. They were also more unsure of the
benefits (see Appendix B for responses).
Table 2
Number of Reasons For or Against Library Association Membership by Theme
a
|
Theme |
Members (n=40) |
Non-members (n=6) |
|
Community |
47 |
2 |
|
Expertise |
42 |
1 |
|
Profession |
23 |
2 |
|
Support |
3 |
2 |
a Respondents could give up to three reasons. (From
survey questions 14 & 21.)
Figure 2 provides results on
the importance of membership factors for association-member respondents, coded
by theme. All five options for the theme community were in the top half
of results and the five options for support were in the lower half. In
Figure 3, results from non-members show the themes are spread more evenly.
Again, note the low number of respondents, which restricts our ability to use
statistical analysis and to generalize results.
Figure 2
The importance of factors in terms of membership in a library
association. All members, n=40.
(From survey
question 17.)
Figure 3
The importance of factors in terms of membership of a library
association. Non-members, n=6.
(From survey
question 21.)
These results
show that there is consistency in responses across our two core questions. For both members and non-members, the reasons for and
against membership mirror the subsequent responses for what is important, which
provides some confidence in internal consistency for this aspect of the
questionnaire. To further check for reliability, we can examine results by
subgroup. We might expect more similarity among member subgroups compared to
non-members.
Looking at the importance of themes, dividing members into HSLG members
and non-HSLG association members shows similarity, and these differ from
non-members (Figure 4). To visually
compare the themes across groups we used the NHS Survey Programme partial credit
scoring system that allows data relating to a question’s options to be
summarized by a single number (Care Quality Commission, 2015). The most
positive answer option (very important) is scored as 10 and the least positive
(not important) is 0. Intermediate answer options are scored with intermediate
values (somewhat important is scored 5). Calculations are then made based on
the number of responses. The method has been tested and enables organizational
performance on a survey question to be summarized and, when required, compared
across organizations.
Figure 4
Themes ranked by
importance and by library association member-status.
(From survey questions 17 & 21.)
Although not
tested for significance, a simple visual examination of results within and
across the results of core questions show what we might expect from a reliable
questionnaire. Factor analysis and significance testing would be useful to
confirm these findings. The option of “other” was very rarely used in the
survey, which gives us some confidence that we didn’t exclude important options
in our questions. This suggests reasonable content validity.
Discussion
Despite obtaining a
relatively small number of responses, our questionnaire performed as expected
and enabled us to meet our aim and
objectives. We now have a much better understanding of what is important to
members and can use this knowledge for planning. In particular, by identifying
themes, we understand that our association group members want to be part of a
community where they can engage with others as much as they want educational
activity. We have already begun to develop a CPD framework that incorporates a
more structured approach, but which also focuses on connecting and engaging
members.
We learned that financial concerns were not particularly prevalent among
members, though it would be interesting to know if this only applied to our
respondents. One may speculate that those who take time to complete a survey
are more invested and active than others. Financial considerations may be more
prevalent among those who do not belong to a library association. Knowing that
most respondents did not have financial support to join an association but did
have support to attend events has implications for those deciding on costs. If
this is true of the wider library and information service population, it would
suggest the importance of keeping costs of joining associations low and
recouping costs through events, which are more likely to be subsidized. Keeping
questions related to financial support is therefore recommended in follow-up
surveys.
Defining Our Target Population
The language used in surveys is crucial as it determines how results can
be interpreted. A challenge in this survey involved defining our population.
There were three main cohorts of interest: those involved in library and
information services based in Ireland who were (1) HSLG members, (2) other
members of library associations, and (3) non-members (former association
members or never joined).
Membership in a library association is generally open to a range of
people. In Ireland, this includes those with or without a professional library
qualification who are or have been employed in the field of librarianship;
those enrolled on a course leading to a professional qualification in library
and information studies; and those with an interest in the work, welfare, and
progress of libraries, but who are not employed in the field (Library Association of Ireland, 2012). Similarly, the American Library Association (2021) allows a broad spectrum of membership, which is
open to “individuals, organizations, and non-profits, and
businesses interested in working together to change the world for the better
through libraries and librarians.” And, in the UK professional association,
CILIP, individual membership is “open to everyone working in knowledge,
information, data or librarianship” (CILIP,
n.d.-b); with those not working in these areas still eligible
to join as non-practitioners (CILIP, n.d.-d). Most associations allow personal and organizational
membership.
An openly available online survey needs to clearly describe eligibility
to ensure you reach those who you want to include, that you avoid wasting the
time of those who you want to exclude, and ultimately, that you get meaningful
results. Association members may be easily identified through membership lists,
but identifying and targeting non-members is difficult. If repeating our
survey, we would make significant changes to the language used in our introduction,
our questions, and dissemination.
Question 1 established the work or study status of respondents. Although
not intentional, use of the term “librarian / information specialist” in our
introduction and in that question is likely to have made some eligible people
feel excluded. There has been interest in finding a respectful and inclusive
term for those who work in library settings who do not have an accredited
professional qualification. “Library staff” was the term preferred by
respondents in a recent survey aiming to find an agreeable term for staff in non-librarian
roles (Schilperoort et al., 2021). However, it is difficult to find an encompassing
title for those working outside traditional library settings. CILIP (n.d.-a) believes that “What makes someone a professional is the knowledge,
skills, attitude, behaviours and values that they bring to their work.” To
acknowledge the wide-ranging roles and focus of the sector it seems advisable
to avoid titles or labels in a survey.
In the future, we may define our population as all
current members of our library association, and anyone else working, seeking
work, retired from work, or studying for a qualification, in the library or
information (knowledge, data) sector in Ireland. Although this excludes
some non-members eligible to join associations, it does include the key groups
primarily required for planning purposes. (See Appendix C for revised survey
instrument.)
The options for question 1 could be the following:
- I am currently working
in the library or information sector.
- I am
currently seeking work in the library or information sector.
- I am
currently studying on a course leading to a qualification in library or
information studies.
- I have
retired from work in the library or information sector.
- I am a
member of a library association and have an interest in the work, welfare
and progress of library and information services but have never been
employed in the sector.
Follow-up questions may be required to establish eligibility or for
contextual analysis:
- I am based in Ireland. Y/N
- I am
working or seeking work in a health-related setting or where health is a
significant component of my work.
Y/N
- I have a
professional library or information qualification. Y/N (if yes, please specify)
Each option needs to have a purpose. If results are going to be used for
reporting and planning, then it is necessary to know the status of respondents.
For example, the views of those working or seeking work in the sector may be
prioritized when planning CPD and other events, and will provide the most
meaningful data from non-members. Knowing the views of students will be
important for future planning and recruitment. For a baseline survey, one may
also want to check that the needs and expectations of specific groups, such as
those with and without professionally accredited qualifications, are similar.
If so, future surveys can omit any distinction. If they provide significantly
different responses, then this may have implications for service provision.
Clear definitions and appropriate language should help attract those who
want to participate in a survey. These are also important for meaningful
analysis of responses. The purpose of the survey must guide decisions about who
to include. For an openly available survey, which is required to capture
non-member views, clear language around eligibility is especially important.
Other Lessons and Limitations
An obvious limitation to the interpretation of our results is the small
number of respondents. The use of membership lists by groups and associations
for dissemination would enable calculation of response rates. However, using a
broad definition for our eligible population and a survey openly promoted
through several sources, means that it was not possible to calculate response
rates for everyone. Attracting participation of non-members would require a
more structured approach; for example, contacting a sample of libraries and
library schools. There are online listings of libraries by country and sector,
such as the IFLA (n.d.) library map of the world. Although often incomplete,
they may be used to increase reach. Researchers must decide what is most important
when reaching their goals: comprehensiveness (sensitivity) versus precision.
Narrower definitions and routes may enable more precise and calculable data but
also limit the diversity of responses.
Social media likes and retweets didn’t necessarily lead to
participation, so this method of dissemination cannot be relied upon alone.
Tagging key groups and individuals and adding a picture may increase
interactions, but ensuring eligible populations view individual communications,
such as a tweet, is unpredictable. Making
the survey available for a longer period and sending the link directly to all
association member lists should increase response rates.
Although the idea of offering a reward for completion is attractive, the
openness of social media communication means that it may attract those who are
not eligible to take part. In our case, following a tweet that mentioned the
draw, we received several (52) inappropriate responses which had to be removed.
To ensure transparency, two researchers independently reviewed the spreadsheet
of results and highlighted those deemed to be ineligible based on content of
answers (such as repeated or inappropriate phrases). Agreement was easily
reached as the identified responses had been filled consecutively overnight. Ensuring
inclusion of only valid responses is potentially a problem for all publicly
available online surveys. We would not include a reward in the future.
Conclusion
Our research, including literature review and survey,
provides us with information on which to plan strategy. We believe that our
questionnaire could be adapted, with relevant elements utilized by other groups
and associations. It is important that governing bodies and committees remember
that our purpose is to guide and implement activity on behalf of members. We
therefore need to understand how well we are doing, and how we should progress,
based on the views of members. We also need to understand why people in our
profession do not join any association so we can remove barriers and ensure benefits are
appropriate, warranted, and clear. Six of the seven participants in our survey
who weren’t current members were former members. If that represents a broader
trend, then we also need to know why people leave their representative
associations.
It
is also useful for members, and potential members, to consider what they want
and expect from their library association. A survey questionnaire can be a
useful means of reminding respondents of the range of benefits that is
available to them. Above all, it should be an impetus for action. Our updated questionnaire will
be a suitable tool to evaluate how well we are meeting our members’
expectations and provide results that can act as a benchmark for progress. This valuable
information will help us plan our activity, set goals, and maintain and grow
membership. We are very grateful to those
who took part in our survey as they have given us a clear direction and renewed
purpose.
We have learned some useful lessons during the research
process. Key points:
·
Take time to define your population. Members of associations are easy
to identify, but non-members (including former members, those who never joined,
and those who may join in the future—such as students) will provide
constructive insight into the value of an organization.
·
Use language that is appropriate and inclusive.
Some terms and titles may alienate potential contributors. It is important that
those who you want to include know they are welcome to participate. A clear
description of eligibility in the survey introduction and in dissemination
channels is required.
·
Dissemination requires planning. Members can be
reached directly through membership lists (enabling response rates to be
calculated). Reaching non-members requires a targeted approach, which may
involve an openly available survey that is promoted through a range of methods
including social media and mailing lists, but should include a structured
sampling of places where non-members work or study.
·
The four themes identified through the literature
and in this survey offer useful categories for assessment and planning.
·
Decisions in relation to data collection tools should be
based on what you want to achieve in the process.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank all members of the HSLG committee, Niamh
Lucey (Chair), Linda Halton, Noreen McHugh, Mairea Nelson,
and Miriam Williams, who were instrumental in the organization of this
research. Their work and dedication to evidence based decision
making on behalf of those involved in health librarianship demonstrates how
library association committees can bring about effective change for our
profession.
References
Agee, J., & Lillard, L.
(2005). A global view of library associations for students and new librarians. New
Library World, 106(11/12), 541–555. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074800510635026
Ahmadian Yazdi,
F., & Deshpande, N. J. (2013). Evaluation of selected library associations’
web sites. Aslib Proceedings, 65(2),
92–108. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012531311313952
American Library Association. (2020,
February 14). ALA responds to financial
situation [Press release]. https://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2020/02/ala-responds-financial-situation
Ball, H. L. (2019). Conducting
online surveys. Journal of Human Lactation, 35(3), 413–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334419848734
Bradley, F., Dalby, A., &
Spencer, A. (2009). Our space: Professional development for new graduates and
professionals in Australia. IFLA Journal, 35(3), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0340035209346211
Broady‐Preston, J. (2006). CILIP: A twenty‐first century
association for the information profession? Library Management, 27(1/2),
48–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/01435120610647947
Care
Quality Commission. (2015). NHS patient survey programme: Survey scoring
method. https://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/20151125_nhspatientsurveys_scoring_methodology.pdf
Chase, S. (2019). Why join a
professional association? Public Libraries, 58(5), 8–11.
Chartered
Institute of Library and Information Professionals. (n.d.-a). A definition of libraries, information and knowledge as a
‘profession.’ Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://www.cilip.org.uk/page/professionalismdefinition
Chartered
Institute of Library and Information Professionals. (n.d.-b). Be part of your profession. Retrieved April 24, 2022,
from https://www.cilip.org.uk/page/JoinAsAMember
Chartered
Institute of Library and Information Professionals. (n.d.-c). We are CILIP: 5 year action plan. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.cilip.org.uk/resource/resmgr/cilip/campaigns/we_are_cilip/we_are_cilip_strategy_report.pdf
Chartered
Institute of Library and Information Professionals. (n.d.-d). We are here for you. Retrieved April 24, 2022, from https://www.cilip.org.uk/page/BecomeAMember
Chartered
Institute of Library and Information Professionals. (n.d.-e). Why become professionally registered? Retrieved June 5,
2022, from https://www.cilip.org.uk/page/ProfessionalRegistration
Corcoran, M., & McGuinness,
C. (2014). Keeping ahead of the curve: Academic librarians and continuing
professional development in Ireland. Library Management, 35(3),
175–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/LM-06-2013-0048
Davidson, J. R., &
Middleton, C. A. (2006). Networking, networking, networking: The role of
professional association memberships in mentoring and retention of science
librarians. Science & Technology Libraries, 27(1–2), 203–224.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J122v27n01_14
DiMauro, V. (2011). Using
online communities in professional associations. Information Outlook, 15(4),
18–20. https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/sla_io_2011/4/
Dowling,
M., & Fiels, K. M. (2009). Global roles of
library associations. In I. Abdullahi (Ed.), Global library and information science (pp. 564–577). K. G. Saur. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783598441349.564
Fink, A., & Kosecoff, J. B. (1998). How to conduct surveys: A step
by step guide (2nd ed). Sage Publications.
Frank, D. G. (1997). Activity
in professional associations: The positive difference in a librarian’s career. Library
Trends, 46(2), 307–319. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/8155
French,
J. (2012). Designing and using surveys as research and evaluation tools. Journal
of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, 43(3), 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2012.06.005
Garrison, B., & Cramer, S.
M. (2021). What librarians say they want from their professional associations:
A survey of business librarians. Journal of Business & Finance
Librarianship, 26(1–2), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/08963568.2020.1819746
Granikov, V., Hong, Q. N., Crist, E., & Pluye, P. (2020). Mixed methods research in library and
information science: A methodological review. Library & Information
Science Research, 42(1), 101003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2020.101003
Henczel, S. (2014). The impact of library associations:
Preliminary findings of a qualitative study. Performance Measurement and
Metrics, 15(3), 122–144. https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-07-2014-0025
Henczel, S. (2016a). The impact of national library
associations on their members, employing organisations and the profession. [Doctoral
dissertation, RMIT University]. RMIT University Research Repository. https://researchrepository.rmit.edu.au/esploro/outputs/9921863743101341
Henczel, S. (2016b). Understanding the impact of national
library association membership: Strengthening the profession for
sustainability. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 5(2),
277–285. http://www.qqml-journal.net/index.php/qqml/article/view/340
International Federation of
Library Associations and Institutions. (n.d.). Library map of the world.
Retrieved June 4, 2022, from https://librarymap.ifla.org/map
International Federation of
Library Associations and Institutions. (2016a). Building strong library
associations programme manual. https://repository.ifla.org/handle/123456789/311
International Federation of
Library Associations and Institutions. (2016b). Building strong library
associations. Annex 16: Member and non-member survey–start of programme. https://repository.ifla.org/handle/123456789/311
Joint, N. (2007). Newly
qualified librarians and their professional associations: UK and US
comparisons: ANTAEUS. Library Review, 56(9), 767–772. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530710831202
Kamm, S. (1997). To join or not to join: How librarians
make membership decisions about their associations. Library Trends, 46(2),
295–306. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/8149
Lachance, J. R. (2006).
Learning, community give library and information associations a bright future. Library
Management, 27(1/2), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1108/01435120610647901
Library and Information
Association of New Zealand Aotearoa.
(n.d.). Professional registration. Retrieved June 4, 2022, from https://lianza.org.nz/professional-development/professional-registration/
Library Association of
Ireland. (2012). Memorandum and articles of association of Cumann Leabharlann na hÉireann (The Library
Association of Ireland). https://www.libraryassociation.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/MEMORANDUM-and-ARTICLES-OF-ASSOCIATION-of-LAI.pdf
Librarianship Studies &
Information Technology. (2020, July 11). Library
associations. https://www.librarianshipstudies.com/2020/07/library-associations.html
Lumpkin, J. (2016). #Why
membership? Professional associations in the Millennial Age: A call to action
through mentorship. OLA Quarterly, 21(3), 5–7. https://journals3.oregondigital.org/olaq/article/view/vol21_iss3_1/1813
Meadows, K. A. (2003). So you
want to do research? 5: Questionnaire design. British Journal of Community
Nursing, 8(12), 562–570. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjcn.2003.8.12.11854
Morrison, H. (2004).
Professional library & information associations should rise to the
challenge of promoting open access and lead by example. Library Hi Tech News,
21(4), 8–10. https://doi.org/10.1108/07419050410545861
National Care Experience
Programme. (n.d.). Survey hub. Retrieved March 13, 2022, from https://yourexperience.ie/survey-hub/
Nayak,
M. S. D. P., & Narayan, K. A. (2019). Strengths and weaknesses of online
surveys. IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 24(5). https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.%2024%20Issue5/Series-5/E2405053138.pdf
Sauceda, J. (2018). MLA personnel characteristics, 2016:
Continuity, change, and concerns. Notes: The Quarterly Journal of the Music
Library Association, 359–371. https://doi.org/10.7282/T30005GF
Schilperoort, H., Quezada, A., & Lezcano,
F. (2021). Words matter: Interpretations and implications of “para” in
paraprofessional. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 109(1),
13–22. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.933
Schwartz, A. (2016, October).
Why join a library association? LibraryScienceDegree.org. https://web.archive.org/web/20161107013244/https://librarysciencedegree.org/why-join-a-library-association/
Spaulding, K., & Maloney,
A. (2017, June 18–20). The impact of
professional associations on the careers of LIS professionals [Paper
presentation]. Special Libraries Association 2017 Annual Conference, Phoenix,
AZ, United States. https://www.sla.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SpauldingMaloneyThe-Impact-of-Professional-Associations-on-the-Careers-of-LIS-Professionals.pdf
Streatfield, D., & Markless, S. (2019). Impact evaluation and IFLA: Evaluating
the impact of three international capacity building initiatives. Performance
Measurement and Metrics, 20(2), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1108/PMM-03-2019-0008
Thomas, V. K., Satpathi, C., & Satpathi, J.
N. (2010). Emerging challenges in academic librarianship and role of library
associations in professional updating. Library Management, 31(8/9),
594–609. https://doi.org/10.1108/01435121011093379
Wise, M. (2012). Participation
in local library associations: The benefits to participants. PNLA Quarterly,
77(1), 50–56. https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/libraryfac/12/